Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Kanpur vs Presding Officer, Labour Court-I and Others

S.U. Khan, J.—List revised. No one appears for the workman-respondent No.3 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Workman-respondent No. 3, Saryu Prasad sought his transfer from Lucknow to Kanpur on his own due to his personal reasons and while making such request, he gave in writing that he would not claim seniority before the date on which he joins at Kanpur. Thereafter, dispute was raised before the Labour Court u/s 11- of U.P.I.D. Act. The matter was registered in the form of Misc. Case No. 100 of 1990 and it was for enforcement of Standing Order No. 20.

The matter was decided on 29.7.1994 by Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I.U.P. Kanpur against the management. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition.

The first contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Labour Court has got no jurisdiction to implement Standing Order u/s 11-U.P.I.D. Act, which deals only with interpretation of Standing Orders and if a dispute arises in respect of enforcement or applicability of a particular Standing, Order, matter can only be referred by State Government u/s 4-K of U.P.l.D. Act. I do not propose to decide this question.

The other argument is that no Standing Order was violated and as petitioner himself agreed for counting of his seniority with effect from the date on which he joined at Kanpur, hence he could not ask for a contrary relief. The Labour Court has held that Standing Order No. 20 was violated. The said Standing Order is quoted below:

Transfers:

Depending on the exigencies of work, a worker is liable to be transferred at the discretion of the Management, from one work, Department, section or job to another or from one Division of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited to another or from one city, town or place to any place in India where Hindustan Aeronautics Limited may now or hereafter have any business, provided that in effecting the transfer, the workman''s suitability and the question of giving him training for new job will be decided by the Management and that the wages of the worker concerned shall be protected together with his seniority. The transfer of worker, from one Division, city, town or place to another will be restricted to the-minimum.

By virtue of the above standing order, it is clear that only when management transfers an employee, his seniority is to be protected. There is nothing in the above standing order which protects the seniority of a workman if he himself seeks transfer. However, in the instant case apart from seeking transfer by himself, the workman-respondent No. 3 also gave in writing that he would not be claiming seniority. Accordingly, in my opinion, impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned order is set aside.